Associated Press Luncheon Speech

[Sirisian]

I didn't watch the video. I tend to read the transcripts instead which is here:
Transcript of Associated Press Luncheon Speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/03/remarks-president-associated-press-luncheon)
It covers the speech he gave yesterday at the Associated Press Luncheon. I think he did an amazing job at breaking down the Republican budget plan for people. Though I don't think many people that needed to watch/read it have gotten a chance to.

The last responses were really spot on regarding his recent health-care changes (Obamacare):
Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.
And the point I think that was made very ably before the Supreme Court, but I think most health care economists who have looked at this have acknowledged, is there are basically two ways to cover people with preexisting conditions or assure that people can always get coverage even when they had bad illnesses. One way is the single-payer plan -- everybody is under a single system, like Medicare. The other way is to set up a system in which you don’t have people who are healthy but don’t bother to get health insurance, and then we all have to pay for them in the emergency room.
But I think what's more important is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to recognize that in a country like ours -- the wealthiest, most powerful country on Earth -- we shouldn’t have a system in which millions of people are at risk of bankruptcy because they get sick, or end up waiting until they do get sick and then go to the emergency room, which involves all of us paying for it.
Basically you have him laying out the truth.

I really feel these kind of talking points are softening up the republican side. They've been traditionally wary of saying what kind of healthcare system they prefer. I mean they can't say "let poor people die" so you end up with awesome responses to these kind of questions.

I especially liked Caldwell's response regarding Obamacare.
The worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company. I want to make my point. All insurance companies are controlled in their particular state. If you have a hurricane come up the east coast, the first one that’s going to leave you when they gotta pay too many claims is an insurance company. Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better. - Source (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/louisianas-ag-says-he-opposes-aca-bec)
Basically advocating for a single-payer system without saying it directly. Too bad Obama hasn't been able to make any movement on such a system though because Republicans labeled single-payer systems as "socialist" and wouldn't compromise on such a system forcing this mandate that people must buy insurance to protect a system that allows people to abuse the ER systems in place artificially inflating the cost of health-care for everyone else.

I wish we could get more republicans to read and analyze these issues without writing them off as not problems. I mean you have candidates right now like Santorum who admitted his private insurance sucks after he spent $100,000 out of his pocket to cover medical expenses when his insurance didn't cover things which for less fortunate people is basically end-game. Then he attacks the bill that would end up saving his family possibly millions of dollars of healthcare in the future because he has to uphold a conservative viewpoint toward fighting against supporting the ability for children with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. (Just another battle between the private health market and ethics).

How are you guys dealing with current political discussions like this popping up? I'm hoping by posting this people will think hard about the repercussions of what is happening right now. (Could just be the older generation though. Seems like the younger generation basically understands the general problems and the possible solutions).

(Also if anyone missed the Cracking Your Genetic Code Nova episode on PBS a few days ago I recommend watching it here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/cracking-your-genetic-code.html). The watch now link is on the right of the site. I think it does a good explanation of the problems we face with pre-existing conditions in the future, or even now).

//edit woah fixed formatting errors.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Sirisian]

That's Obama doing damage control for the inevitable strikedown of the most ridiculous bill in our nation's history.
It's really not that ridiculous. Massachusetts has had a similar system in place for a while. The big disagreement seems to be should it be a state or a federal initiative. You have some people that prefer state laws as they are perceived to be more local and customizable. The whole concept of the current health system is that you want people to pay for their own health, however not everyone can pay. Then you have to decide what level of health people that can't pay get. Currently in most states non-emergency health is often denied except through loopholes. (Quitting your job to fall within certain criteria for aid among other things). The whole requiring people above a certain income to purchase insurance is a novel idea, but coming from the federal level it's sometimes viewed as going too far. Either way if you have the money to buy insurance and choose not to then you are taking a calculated risk. It is then argued that you shouldn't then be able to buy insurance when you are sick since it breaks the insurance system thus no pre-existing conditions. The system is idealized sadly for healthy people. If you want insurance but can't get it then you need extra systems in place. Which Massachusetts was forced to create when it realized a lot of people didn't have insurance, not because they didn't want to get it, but because they were denied coverage for previous illnesses. (I believe according to a conservative website I read they listed Massachusetts as already having 94% insured before the bill was passed so the system was really only designed to affect 6% of the population). On a national scale you're looking at 16.4% not having insurance which is a huge difference. (That's assuming everyone has insurance that would meet the requirements, which they might not).

Why we're messing around with this compromised solution seems a waste of time. I along with most of my friends are waiting for the Republicans to crack and allow a federal single-payer system. Both the Republicans and Democrats agree that healthcare in the US is too expensive and needs more oversight to control prices. (Currently insurance companies deal with hospitals on a one on one basis to decide costs. It's a fairly insane system which has been broken a lot). However, both parties seem to disagree with how to fix the price in healthcare or to even agree on what a single-payer system would look like for the US and how it would affect the current medical system. The Republicans have a pessimistic view that it would lower our quality of care severely leading to long lines. The Democrats are usually optimistic stating that early screening and actually allowing people to not delay problems, because of fear of costs, would lower costs. I think this is also where the separation between state and federal is distinguished. I'm not sure if the Republican state idea comes into this. There's always the tendency for them to say that states can manage things better at the state level. Which could be true. Though they might want to control how the system would be implemented which would be a disagreement.

I digress. I think I went into that too far.


Obama - "I'm still digging us out of Bush's mess, it was so bad it took me 4 years to turn it around! Republicans dont' care about people! they want old people to die and children to go uneducated, while they line the rich's pockets (with the money they earned themselves) and Romney is an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to the american people!"
And yet he extended the Bush Tax Cuts for another two years. It does make one question his decisions about undoing what Bush did. Not sure where the children going uneducated comes from. I must missed that article. As far as not taxing the rich it's a problem that goes hand in hand with the Bush tax cuts. The Buffet Rule (http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule) is a very very small step in the right direction. (Still have capital gain taxes to deal with since that system has been exploited to death by now).

Romney - "Obama is a reckless spender that will drown our children and grandchildren in debt that will lead to financial collapse, and an incompetent president full of broken promises"
There's a fun site for tracking that stuff here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/). Generally it's been fairly easy to track some of his broken promises back to congress's inability to compromise. There are some promises he should have never made since it was obvious he couldn't do them. Like closing Guantanamo Bay among other topics.

Regarding debt I hope the Romney doesn't keep lying. That stuff is getting pretty tired. I talk to a tea party member sometimes (60 year old guy really into politics) and he's getting pretty mad at that kind of stuff since and I quote "anyone can go online and verify this stuff. He's just making Republicans look bad".

That and assuming Romney will win is a bit early. The few republicans I've talked to want a brokered convention.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

That's Obama doing damage control for the inevitable strikedown of the most ridiculous bill in our nation's history.


Allow me to sum up the campaign this year

Obama - "I'm still digging us out of Bush's mess, it was so bad it took me 4 years to turn it around! Republicans dont' care about people! they want old people to die and children to go uneducated, while they line the rich's pockets (with the money they earned themselves) and Romney is an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to the american people!"

Romney - "Obama is a reckless spender that will drown our children and grandchildren in debt that will lead to financial collapse, and an incompetent president full of broken promises"


There, just saved you seven months of drivel and campaign speeches.

The really interesting stuff won't be playing in ads until October. Gotta cook the grenades so they have no time to respond before election day and they're fresh in people's minds.

Rich people like Romney are really out earning money themselves through lower capital gains taxes.

[TheSHiFT]

Congress's inability to compromise? Dems had a majority in both houses. They could have passed whatever legislation they wanted to.

Between Frankin's delayed seating and Kennedy's death Dems had 58 votes in the Senate for about 3 months. Of the 2 independents, one is one of the few socialist in federal government, the other is Lieberman, who campaigned for McCain in 2008.

The individual mandate is a conservative free-market idea dated as far back as Nixon. It was part of the GOP plan against Hillarycare in the early 90s.

He vowed to cut the debt in half in his first term. Instead he's doubled it. He's ignored all the recommendations from the debt committee he commissioned. His irresponsible handling of the debt lowered the country's credit rating. The republicans elected into congress in 2010 to actually start being fiscally responsible wanted to turn that round and he opposed them too.

You understand that not raising the debt ceiling would have put us into default, lowering credit rating even more? That S&P specifically stated it was "political brinkmanship" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_story.html) that caused them to downgrade. The increase in debt as been about 50%, not 100%.

Then he added health care at the worst possible time to add it and made insurance premiums go even higher and employers hesitate to hire. Then he wants to tax those employers to pay for more entitlement programs for his own social justice crusade in an attempt to buy votes with handouts.
What? Most of Obamacare doesnt go into affect until 2014, which would lower premiums.

He vowed to close guantamamo within the first year - and nothing stopped him from doing so. He's the commander in chief. It's a military base. It is 100% in his power to close it.
It isnt that simple actually. Where is he going to put them?

He vowed to end "dont' ask don't tell" and took his sweet time, backing off the issue and it took Libertarian pressure on gay voters to get him to finally do it. He tries to tiptoe around everyone and avoid rocking the boat and he has succeeded in doing nothing but halting economic progress in this country. He has nothing to stand on, and instead of campaigning on a 4-year record of being President he's going to spend most of his time blaming others and demonizing Romney. That wont' be received nearly as well as his "hope" and "change" message of 2008.
You mean he is a moderate? Why, yes he is! The economy hasn't halted (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth)


Like this woman. It still blows my mind that anyone in congress would say something like this.
Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU)

The whole quote:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

The House then passes the bill onto the Senate. Not the brightest thing for a Speaker to say, but hardly as damning as some people seem to think.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

They could have passed anything they wanted with that majority. They didn't even try. Why? Because anything they passed would be squarely blamed on them. They wanted Republican votes so they can claim it was bipartisan and avoid having it blowback on them.

No they couldnt. They would need 60 votes to override a filibuster. Obamacare ended up pass w/o a single GOP vote (after reconciliation).

You realize that Obama & Congress had MONTHs to get a budget passed, which it is required by law to have been done. They intentionally delayed it so they could force the ceiling raise.

They had plenty of options - cut the f'ing spending. And balance the f'ing budget. They had many months to do it. They refused.

I dunno about you, but I don't live beyond my means, and nor should the government. It's a wound left to fester and get far worse than it needs to be.

The 2011 United States federal budget is the United States federal budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2011, which is October 2010 – September 2011. The budget is the subject of a spending request by President Barack Obama.[3][4] The actual appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 had to be authorized by the full Congress before it could take effect, according to the United States budget process.
The budget did not pass by the September 30 deadline, and the government was funded by a series of seven continuing resolutions continuing funding at or near 2010 levels. The budget negotiations culminated in early April 2011, with a tense legislative standoff leading to speculation that the nation would face its first government shutdown since 1995. However, a deal containing $38.5 billion in cuts from 2010 funding levels was reached with just hours remaining before the deadline. The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011, as Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget)

So they voted for the budget, but when it was time to fund it the GOP pulls a bullshit stunt that lowers the US credit rating.

lol, they've gone UP since the law passed. There's nothing in that law that lowers them. But thankfully it's going to get struck down by the high court and we will see premiums go down because of it.

Yet the law doesnt go into full effect until 2014.

You understand that by requiring everyone to have insurance, you increase the pool and lower premiums? Right now, if someone w/o insurance gets treatment (such as expensive ER treatment) the provider has to raise costs on everyone else to cover it, thus raising premiums. Not to mention that if everyone has insurance, they're more likely to go to the doctor more regularly, which is much cheaper than going to the ER when a problem is major.

t IS that simple. According to liberals all of those prisoners are being held illegally.

Return them to their country. Oh wait, that would destroy career and legacy if even one of them were to go on to commit another terrorist act against the US.

And putting them in US prisons would piss off every state. So what is he to do? The smart thing for him to do is nothing because every outcome is bad for him. He's a smart politician, so he's doing nothing and he'll weather the storm of criticism over it. That is the path of least political damage.

And why would putting them in a US prison be such a bad idea? Why are my fellow Americans such pussies that they cant handle a supposed terrorist locked up in a US prison? Why is public opinion such against this move that no state will take them?

Encouraging people to pass legislation without reading it? Just how retarded do you have to be to say something like that? What's more stunning is that she got re-elected. Her voters are even stupider than she is.
Re-read the quote. She was explaining that the bill was being so obfuscated, that by passing it people would be able to read exactly what was being proposed. Tell me, what happens after the house approves a bill?

[TheSHiFT]

1) Short-term capital gains are taxed at the normal tax rate. That means investments that you hold onto less than 1 year. Long term gains cap out at 15% because they are riskier investments. Democrats love to misrepresent capital gains by only referring to long term investment and leaving out the high short term tax rate. Learn more about the actual rates here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States)

Oh I understand. Romney also paid <15% in taxes last year thanks to capital gains. He also thinks he pays too much. I paid a higher rate than a multi-millionaire

2) Capital gains is money earned on investment, not wages. When you earn wages and then turn around and invest that money and get taxed on the investment, you were taxed twice.

How absurd! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/upyernoz/9330340/)

3) Investment is not limited to the rich. Anyone can do it. Rich or poor. The lower income brackets have lower capital gains taxes to try to encourage investment, at least under the Bush cuts.

It is effectively limited when cost of living prevents you from having enough money to invest in the first place. If you can't afford rent, you arent investing.

4) If you had ever done investment, you'd know that it is a lot of work to find good investments, and there's always risk you can lose money, unlike employment. You can invest a lot of money and lose all of it, and if you do make gains that's taxed. It's a lot of risk, and a lot of work.

You know what else even more work? Actual work. You know what is risky to your health and well being? Many jobs. So why are they taxed at a higher rate?

5) Adding taxes to capital gains adds risk to investment. Lowering or removing the tax lessens the risk and thus encourages investment. Lower taxes encourage investment in our market and lead to economic growth.

You know what else adds to economic growth? A middle class with lots of disposable income. The economy is dynamic. If there is demand investment wont need to be encouraged.

If more people were educated on how to make smart investments we'd see more investing and more economic growth. Instead liberals want to ignorantly demonize capitalism so they can press their socialist agenda and get votes by taking from the rich and giving to the poor while simultaneously keeping the poor down so they retain those votes.

What money are you investing if you live in poverty?

As the old proverb goes...

Give a man a fish and he will not go hungry today.
Teach a man to fish and he will not go hungry for his lifetime.

Okay. But where does the man get his fishing gear?


Liberals want to give out lots of fish instead of teaching those who are hungry how to fish. The former perpetuates poverty and allows them to continue pointing fingers at the rich. The latter actually solves the problem, but would rob them of their platform. Liberals are not the friends of the poor; they're actually the ones holding the poor back with economic slavery and welfare chains. It's brilliant because the poor actually thank them for it and believe they are helping.

Yea those blasted pell grants and food stamps I received really held me back... Oh wait, they gave me the opportunity to succeed.

It also goes back to individualism, a fundamental difference between modern liberals and classic liberals (aka modern conservatives). The former believes in income redistribution, which is a belief in the society not the individual. The other believes in individual ability to excel and thrive, which is the classic American self-made-man story, such as Abraham Lincoln's story.

No individual is independent of society. Without society, an individual would not thrive.

Bush lowered long-term capital gains to 5% on the lowest tax bracket individuals (this is spun by liberals as the "bush tax cuts that only affect the wealthiest americans" - which is untrue because lower class and middle class investors also benefited). Short term gains were unaffected by the cuts, but short-term gains will be increasing next year, which is not good for the economy. Thanks to Obama long term gains for the lower tax brackets will be double what it is today in 2013. That's right, Mr. Hope and Change made it harder for the middle-class Americans to invest and accumulate wealth, not only hurting one's ability to overcome economic barriers but also discouraging investment into the market. Screwing both working class and the entire economy simultaneously. And yet some of them still have this illusion that he's working for them because they remain ignorant of how investment actually works. As long as people are ignorant on how to make the most of capitalism they will continue to be abused.
Again, poor and middle class do not have nearly as much money to invest. So yes it DOES mostly only affect the wealthiest Americans.

Only through embracing capitalism will the poor rise in wealth and our economy improve.

And when it comes to leading our country, I'd much rather have a man who knows how the capitalist system works and has personally thrived in it. He understands how to create wealth and jobs, which is precisely the skillset our country needs its leader to have. Hope doesn't pull people out of poverty; knowledge and work ethic do.

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Im pretty sure Adam Smith knew a thing or two about capitalism.

[CutterJohn]

1) Short-term capital gains are taxed at the normal tax rate. That means investments that you hold onto less than 1 year. Long term gains cap out at 15% because they are riskier investments. Democrats love to misrepresent capital gains by only referring to long term investment and leaving out the high short term tax rate.

Indeed, but not many people actually keep investments less than a year. Mostly just speculators. If you receive stock options as part of your compensation package, anyone with a brain will simply not sell the stock for a year in order to avoid the extra taxes. People for whom this is a factor are not living paycheck to paycheck.

2) Capital gains is money earned on investment, not wages. When you earn wages and then turn around and invest that money and get taxed on the investment, you were taxed twice.

No, its not. The tax is on the gain, not the principle. If I make $20, I get taxed on it. Probably around $6-7, all told. So now we'll say I'm at $13. I buy a stock for $13. One year later, that stock has gained 10% in value, so now its worth $14.30. I sell it. I am NOT taxed on the $13, because that has already been taxed. I am taxed on the $1.30. Thats new money that I did not possess before, which has not been taxed.

3) Investment is not limited to the rich. Anyone can do it. Rich or poor. The lower income brackets have lower capital gains taxes to try to encourage investment, at least under the Bush cuts.

People aren't stuffing money into their mattresses anymore. Even if they aren't specifically investing, they are keeping their money in a bank, meaning the money is being invested anyway. People will always invest their spare cash because aside from the aforementioned mattress trick, there is nothing else to do with it.

And if capital gains were simply regarded as income its already on a progressive scale. No need for additional rules regarding it.

4) If you had ever done investment, you'd know that it is a lot of work to find good investments, and there's always risk you can lose money, unlike employment. You can invest a lot of money and lose all of it, and if you do make gains that's taxed. It's a lot of risk, and a lot of work.

Its not a lot of work at all. Put it in an index fund. Aaaand.. You're done. Historical %10 return. Just don't panic and sell when the market crashes for a bit. If you're trying to play the markets you're either a professional(and hence its your job) or you're a fool.

Whats the big deal with risk anyway? I risk my life and livelihood when I go to work. It doesn't entitle me to a 15% tax rate. With an investment I merely risk my money.

Only through embracing capitalism will the poor rise in wealth and our economy improve.

Oh please. Pure capitalism is as absurd a model as pure communism. Just as communism requires a perfectly selfless person, capitalism requires a perfectly rational and informed person free of any outside influence(such as, oh, marketing).

Both systems are equally broken because humans are human. A communist citizen will cheat and be lazy to gain an undeserved advantage(less work, same money). A capitalist person will cheat/lie/obscure the truth to gain an undeserved advantage(more money for same work).

The only thing that works and is stable is a middle ground between the two, because unmoderated capitalism is every bit as evil of an idea as rigid communism. In other words, it would be quite nice if people would stop worshiping it.

Liberals want to give out lots of fish instead of teaching those who are hungry how to fish.
Teach a man to fish and he will not go hungry for his lifetime.

And put a man in charge of a fishing hole and he will fish and fish and fish and fish and fish and fish and fish and fish, because he feels the only right thing to do is to fish as much as you possibly can through whatever means necessary, and then he'll trade fish so his kids never have to work through school(and ensure they get into the best school with the best fish connections), and trade more fish to help them get a really nice job or maybe just give them the fishing hole, and he'll give fish to an expensive expert to make sure he owes as few fish as possible, and he'll sit on the board of another mans fishing hole and each will convince the others stockholders that they need to be able to catch even more fish because all the other fishermen are catching that many fish, and he'll threaten his fish stockers with the prospect of no fish unless they stock the pond faster because he knows that without fish of their own they will be ruined, and he'll pay a man to make sure the fish stockers don't organize so they actually have a reasonable bargaining position, or just fire the fish stockers talking about it, and pay another man more fish so that he can lobby the government to ensure his little fish empire is secure from start up competitors or get the nice fish supplying contract, and he'll pay another man fish to make sure the government doesn't take more of his fish from him, and he'll pay a last man fish to make sure the people with no fish think that somehow its right and just that he have so many fish.

This liberal wants to give out enough fish that people won't starve or be destitute, even if they aren't good or tasty fish. He'd also appreciate it if certain fishermen realized they've won after catching 1 or 2 lifetime supplies of fish from their super premium fishing holes and let others other fish from that spot, or maybe they could give the guys who stock those ponds for them more fish instead of taking as many fish as possible for themselves.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

The only fair point in two posts of liberal drivel is helping people get the tools for investing in their own future. However unlike the liberals I think that is a problem worth fixing. Educate and provide incentives such as no

The liberal fallacy of tax the rich/corporations and give to the poor neither incentivizes the poor nor does it encourage the rich or their wealth to remain in this country. The rich and small business owners and corporatio are the primary employers. Doesn't take too much brain power to figure out that heavier taxes on them leads to less employment, and lower tax revenues. Its lose lose.

Reform entitlements. The welfare state will drown us all as it is drowning countries like Greece.

Of course the liberals didnt believe a word I just wrote but whatever. Blindly vote your hearts. You'll come around in a few decades.

Yea! Dont try to refute anything that was posted and just blindly follow GOP talking points.

[Hamma]

Liberals want to give out lots of fish instead of teaching those who are hungry how to fish. The former perpetuates poverty and allows them to continue pointing fingers at the rich. The latter actually solves the problem, but would rob them of their platform. Liberals are not the friends of the poor; they're actually the ones holding the poor back with economic slavery and welfare chains. It's brilliant because the poor actually thank them for it and believe they are helping.

This probably couldn't have been said any better. As someone who lived in Massachusetts at the tail end of when they implemented their shitty health care reform.. it's a joke. People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate. Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine. How does this make sense? And when does it end? If the government can tell us to buy health care what is the next thing they will tell us to buy.

Yea! Dont try to refute anything that was posted and just blindly follow GOP talking points.

I for one don't affiliate with a political party. None of these idiots and neither party goes along fully with how I would like this country to be run.

[Warborn]

"Trickle-down" economics was tried during Reagan's administration, wasn't it? And didn't produce the results people thought it would? Did Clinton slash social programs and give tax breaks to the wealthy/corporations in order to produce the surplus he did? People talk about how social programs need to be annihilated and taxes on the wealthy and corporations needs to be reduced as much as possible as if that's the only way nations have ever achieved prosperity. And yet, the facts don't support that as far as I can tell.

[CutterJohn]

People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate.

And people who by luck or accident of genetics who have some condition insurance wouldn't touch pay out the nose, while those who through luck or accident of genetics get it at a cut rate.


Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine.

Because if you don't have insurance, we end up paying for it anyway. If you go to the emergency room after a car crash, they save your life. If that means spending $300k and 2 months in intensive care, thats what happens. If your baby is born with some serious birth defect that requires a lot of money, the baby is saved. They do their damnedest to take care of it. If anything happens, that you cannot afford, you end up not paying. Maybe you ruin your credit. Maybe you just file bankruptcy(medical bankruptcies are, btw, by far the most common). And then what happens? The hospital eats the loss, and raises its prices to cover.

And if you do have insurance? You're still participating in socialism. You're paying for their operations, their kids with cancer, their prescriptions, their frivolous use of the emergency room.

We are all already paying for everyones health care. Having an insurance mandate doesn't make things socialist.. it already is highly socialist. But it is implemented in the absolute worst, and most inefficient, possible way, because some people can't stand the thought of giving people something with no strings attached, they feel everything must be earned in some fashion. So we got the awesome mix where you still sometimes can get what you didn't earn(i.e. expensive emergency care), but you will be severely punished for it, and of course the massive inefficient bureaucracy intended to deny people.





As for the welfare state breeding entitlement whores? In the year 2000, national unemployment was less than 3%. People want to work when work is available. There may be a few people living happily off the public tit, but they are very few and far between, and have ridiculously low standards. Or possibly are disabled. Life on the dole(what little you can get these days) is a miserable existence.

And capital gains? Phooey. In the 90s, it was 28%, the economy was strong, unemployment low, and we even managed to balance the budget a few times. Maybe it helps a bit, but it certainly hasn't proven to have been all that helpful.


People talk about how social programs need to be annihilated and taxes on the wealthy and corporations needs to be reduced as much as possible as if that's the only way nations have ever achieved prosperity. And yet, the facts don't support that as far as I can tell.

It still amazes me that they can say UHC doesn't work when there are dozens of examples of it working absolutely fine. Or that socialism is pure evil and dooms you to failure, when places like norway/sweden/finland exist.

I mean.. those countries exist.. right now. You can open up wikipedia and read all about them. They are, right now, literally doing, and doing so quite successfully, what people here are saying is completely impossible and the worst idea ever. And then you point this out, and they say it wouldn't work, and you ask why. No real answer there, but pretty much the only reason it doesn't work is because a large portion of people do not want it to work.

A nice self fulfilling prophecy.

[Sirisian]

It IS that simple. According to liberals all of those prisoners are being held illegally.

Return them to their country. Oh wait, that would destroy career and legacy if even one of them were to go on to commit another terrorist act against the US.

And putting them in US prisons would piss off every state. So what is he to do? The smart thing for him to do is nothing because every outcome is bad for him. He's a smart politician, so he's doing nothing and he'll weather the storm of criticism over it. That is the path of least political damage.
This was mentioned before the election that it was an impossible promise for that exact reason. Also I don't think liberals believe all of them are held illegally. Some of the cases though where innocent people were held for 7 years without a trial was getting fairly ridiculous. It wasn't illegal so much as unethical in a lot of cases. Basically kidnapping people and getting very confused on what to do with someone that is just a regular citizen of another country. Read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html). Or this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html). It happens all too frequently. Or just watch this (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3980799n). It's very hard to justify these kinds of practices.

You're right that moving them all to the US would be a state problem. The bigger problem is actually finding out if they have evidence against the people they take. That information is secret though meaning for many people there it's impossible to be released even if you are falsely accused. That and the whole torture thing. Basically if you have to hold people in another country because what you're doing is so unethical then you probably are doing it wrong.

I think everyone else refuted most of the conservative talking points so I'll not reiterate those, but this one always irks me because people are so misinformed about it. I'm kind of surprised Malorn fell for the giving money to rich helps the poor succeed in the economy. There has been no supporting evidence for that. You would only gain that viewpoint from reading opinionated conservative media.


We are all already paying for everyones health care. Having an insurance mandate doesn't make things socialist.. it already is highly socialist. But it is implemented in the absolute worst, and most inefficient, possible way, because some people can't stand the thought of giving people something with no strings attached, they feel everything must be earned in some fashion. So we got the awesome mix where you still sometimes can get what you didn't earn(i.e. expensive emergency care), but you will be severely punished for it, and of course the massive inefficient bureaucracy intended to deny people.
I often think this point is completely obvious, but I've met way too many people who don't realize this. Basically all some people want is a cleaner system of handling this problem.

This probably couldn't have been said any better. As someone who lived in Massachusetts at the tail end of when they implemented their shitty health care reform.. it's a joke. People who are employed pay full price for health care while those who are low income get it at a cut rate. Best of all? If you don't get health care at all (which should be your choice) you pay a fine. How does this make sense? And when does it end? If the government can tell us to buy health care what is the next thing they will tell us to buy.
It makes sense because healthy people are required for insurance to work. If healthy people decide they are too healthy to need insurance then the system fails. That is you can't fund insurance with sick people so you require everyone to have insurance. Using private insurance companies though is extremely inefficient, but until we can get the stigma out of a single-payer system where no one is fined, and it's a simple tax based system to support everyone we'll be stuck with these less than ideal models to support everyone. You can tell from listening to the Democrats that this is not really the system they want at all either. It's just the only thing that Republicans can see halfway and won't block. Basically we're trying to regulate a private industry (because private industry is better for this somehow) that decides who gets healthcare or not, but at the same time we can't let people just die on the streets since most people agree that's unethical in a modern society.

Also as mentioned a lot of healthcare related things are random occurrences that destroy one's savings. This happens on a daily basis with people that get their appendix removed. Even with insurance it can often cost up to $8K dollars. I believe it's around $20K-40K without insurance and that's assuming you get out of the hospital as soon as it's over and rest at home. (Meaning only staying for like 10 hours). I have amazing insurance because of where my dad works and I still paid $1K dollars after a surgery. I was only there for 3 hours. Quick walk in got knocked out in like 20 minutes and went under the knife then woke up and was wheelchaired out the door where my mom was waiting. (Couldn't drive since I was still out of it). That was a surgery that happened in a matter of a week from when I met a doctor about the problem. On top of that I had to pay like a 10 dollar deductible for the following 2 follow-ups to get the stiches removed which wasn't a problem, but seemed a bit odd since I've never seen a deductible that low. (I've only been sick like 3 times in my life and never been to a hospital before that point so maybe it's really common).

I'm hoping within our lifetime we don't have to deal with that, but I think it might be impossible convincing people that healthcare should be a right. For now Obamacare seems to be the most agreeable solution.

[Warborn]

Tim Krieder to the rescue. Here's the entire political debate wrapped up:

http://i.imgur.com/Tosq0.jpg

[Vecha]

I'm mixed on the health care issue.

On my cynical side, If people don't want the mandate...then they better fucking not let idiots who choose not to get health care go to the emergency room and jack up prices for the rest of us responsible folks.


On my softer side, I think everyone should have healthcare as a right. But I can understand how some would feel this goes against capitalism. Of course, I'd say we stopped being full capitalism over a century ago.

[Sirisian]

I'm mixed on the health care issue.
I could go on the emotional side and start linking the recent influx of hundreds of Obamacare stories. This one was on reddit today (http://www.alternet.org/story/154861/my_14_year_old_son_has_brain_cancer_--_without_obamacare%2C_we_may_have_been_dropped_by_ our_insurance_company?akid=8530.225075.FU79BB&rd=1&t=12).

I can understand the more capitalist idea that people in that situation should file for bankruptcy or receive poorer care</sarcasm>. I'd rather just forgo the whole bankruptcy problem if we can give someone the care they require then we might as well do all we can. It's a lot less stress on families who really should be focused on their own well being, not on their mounting bills because of something they can't control. Bit idealistic maybe.

[Sgt Shultz]

Basically you have him laying out the truth.

I am not going to comment on the rest of the post but I think you need to be a bit more honest with your assessment of Pres. Obama laying out "the truth" for his health care bill.

Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.

The reason its in the news is because the Supreme Court has review the bill, and from all indications the Solicitor General did a piss poor job defending it. Furthermore there is a very significant chance the bill will be overturned, because the SG could not provide a clear definition as to how far Congress can go with the commerce clause. Without that definition, this bill would fundamentally change the relationship of the government to the citizen. In other words, if these bill is viable then is 2 servings a day of broccoli viable? What else can we force the public to purchase by calling it "commerce"?

Sure as hell sounds like an overreach to me. Whether you want to call it socialist or not is up to you.

[Sirisian]

I am not going to comment on the rest of the post but I think you need to be a bit more honest with your assessment of Pres. Obama laying out "the truth" for his health care bill.
He stated the exact problem. To preserve a private insurance industry, like the Republicans want, while forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for children (taking the burden away from Hospitals and others) among the other changes doesn't necessarily require that everyone buy insurance, but you're placing a huge burden on a private industry seeking profits if you suddenly say to them "oh yeah we know you don't want to help sick people", but we need you to cover their costs if they sign up with you.

The cost has to go somewhere. Currently in the US the cost just goes into everyone's premiums when Hospitals are hit with the bill. Pushing it into insurance companies raises rates potentially, but it's really not different than putting the burden on hospitals who then increase the prices of services to cover those bills.

So Obama did lay out the truth. It's just extremely complicated and most people don't fully grasp where the costs are going and coming from. When the costs are solely on hospitals to help poor people in the ER you're looking at a huge cost. So much so that it's difficult to use a doctor in the US without insurance. Something as "simple" as visiting a doctor to get something checked can be 100 dollars in most states. (Sometimes more. Free clinics I believe are cheaper like 60-80 dollars). It gets more expensive if you need a quick test done. Like a strep throat test. Easily 50 dollars for the test (though I heard some places do it for 20 dollars). Takes like 15 minutes for them to do in their labs. I had one done less than a year ago after my coworker got strep throat and brought it into work. I have insurance so I didn't have to deal with the full cost. Anyway the huge cost we see is caused because of how poorly hospitals are protected from liability and having to help people that can't pay. Redirecting that cost on insurance companies with a plan to force people to buy insurance is a fairly legitimate way to manage those costs so the healthcare system doesn't have to.


Sure as hell sounds like an overreach to me. Whether you want to call it socialist or not is up to you.
As much as socialism is thrown around, I would say it is borderline. You have the government dictating what a private company can and cannot do. Basically controlling an aspect of their distribution model which is one of the tenants of socialism. It happens all the time. I mean just look at the EU when they forced Apple to extend their warranties to two years a few days ago. (Though I believe there was a law related to that). Personally I'm a socialist so I have no problem with such controls to protect consumers. Especially when it comes to healthcare. It's a different way to view companies and people that the US hasn't embraced much.

The reason its in the news is because the Supreme Court has review the bill, and from all indications the Solicitor General did a piss poor job defending it. Furthermore there is a very significant chance the bill will be overturned, because the SG could not provide a clear definition as to how far Congress can go with the commerce clause. Without that definition, this bill would fundamentally change the relationship of the government to the citizen. In other words, if these bill is viable then is 2 servings a day of broccoli viable? What else can we force the public to purchase by calling it "commerce"?
Slippery slope logical fallacies really shouldn't be used, but you bring up a valid point by stating that. When you give the government the okay to do simple things they more often than not abuse that power which is a huge problem. This came up when people were discussing the "fat tax" which would classify unhealthy food in order to control proper eating via a taxation system. A novel idea, but extremely lobbied against and was ultimately destroyed. Not to mention most people were against the government interfering with our choices. By the way it should be mentioned the FDA already mandates school lunches so we already have a similar control in place to protect children from unhealthy choices. There's obviously a line where the government can say if you're going to do something you need to follow some requirements. That is normally for privileges though like driving a car, and not for things like simply being a citizen. I personally have no problem with the government placing requirements for working adults to pay into an insurance system, but much like others I don't care much for that money going to a private profit driven industry (often times connected to my employer). If it's crushed, and I really wouldn't care either way (other than that it'll hurt a lot of children that are currently using it) I hope it opens peoples eyes up that this problem isn't going away.

[Sgt Shultz]

He stated the exact problem. To preserve a private insurance industry, like the Republicans want, while forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions for children (taking the burden away from Hospitals and others) among the other changes doesn't necessarily require that everyone buy insurance, but you're placing a huge burden on a private industry seeking profits if you suddenly say to them "oh yeah we know you don't want to help sick people", but we need you to cover their costs if they sign up with you.

The cost has to go somewhere. Currently in the US the cost just goes into everyone's premiums when Hospitals are hit with the bill. Pushing it into insurance companies raises rates potentially, but it's really not different than putting the burden on hospitals who then increase the prices of services to cover those bills.

So Obama did lay out the truth. It's just extremely complicated and most people don't fully grasp where the costs are going and coming from. When the costs are solely on hospitals to help poor people in the ER you're looking at a huge cost. So much so that it's difficult to use a doctor in the US without insurance. Something as "simple" as visiting a doctor to get something checked can be 100 dollars in most states. (Sometimes more. Free clinics I believe are cheaper like 60-80 dollars). It gets more expensive if you need a quick test done. Like a strep throat test. Easily 50 dollars for the test (though I heard some places do it for 20 dollars). Takes like 15 minutes for them to do in their labs. I had one done less than a year ago after my coworker got strep throat and brought it into work. I have insurance so I didn't have to deal with the full cost. Anyway the huge cost we see is caused because of how poorly hospitals are protected from liability and having to help people that can't pay. Redirecting that cost on insurance companies with a plan to force people to buy insurance is a fairly legitimate way to manage those costs so the healthcare system doesn't have to.


As much as socialism is thrown around, I would say it is borderline. You have the government dictating what a private company can and cannot do. Basically controlling an aspect of their distribution model which is one of the tenants of socialism. It happens all the time. I mean just look at the EU when they forced Apple to extend their warranties to two years a few days ago. (Though I believe there was a law related to that). Personally I'm a socialist so I have no problem with such controls to protect consumers. Especially when it comes to healthcare. It's a different way to view companies and people that the US hasn't embraced much.

Slippery slope logical fallacies really shouldn't be used, but you bring up a valid point by stating that. When you give the government the okay to do simple things they more often than not abuse that power which is a huge problem. This came up when people were discussing the "fat tax" which would classify unhealthy food in order to control proper eating via a taxation system. A novel idea, but extremely lobbied against and was ultimately destroyed. Not to mention most people were against the government interfering with our choices. By the way it should be mentioned the FDA already mandates school lunches so we already have a similar control in place to protect children from unhealthy choices. There's obviously a line where the government can say if you're going to do something you need to follow some requirements. That is normally for privileges though like driving a car, and not for things like simply being a citizen. I personally have no problem with the government placing requirements for working adults to pay into an insurance system, but much like others I don't care much for that money going to a private profit driven industry (often times connected to my employer). If it's crushed, and I really wouldn't care either way (other than that it'll hurt a lot of children that are currently using it) I hope it opens peoples eyes up that this problem isn't going away.

I am not debating if healthcare costs are going up and I certainly agree with you that it is a problem and is not going away. However, I take serious issue with how what is being presented. Obama is trying to pull the "Republicans want you to die" card, when the real issue is the bill that was written was a massive overreach.

Also I take issue with how the bill was presented initially as not a tax, and now the SG is trying to claim it is a tax and thus within the scope of the congress. The duplicity is pretty disgusting given the fact that it paves the way for further intrusion by the government.

[Vecha]

I could go on the emotional side and start linking the recent influx of hundreds of Obamacare stories. This one was on reddit today (http://www.alternet.org/story/154861/my_14_year_old_son_has_brain_cancer_--_without_obamacare%2C_we_may_have_been_dropped_by_ our_insurance_company?akid=8530.225075.FU79BB&rd=1&t=12).

I can understand the more capitalist idea that people in that situation should file for bankruptcy or receive poorer care</sarcasm>. I'd rather just forgo the whole bankruptcy problem if we can give someone the care they require then we might as well do all we can. It's a lot less stress on families who really should be focused on their own well being, not on their mounting bills because of something they can't control. Bit idealistic maybe.

Oh, believe me...I understand what many are going through.

I recently got on my Fiance's insurance...and they wanted me to wait 6 months due to a "pre-existing condition"

My comment was more towards some people who say, "I don't want insurance! I want to pay out of pocket!"

Who'd I would wager are in the same group that shout, "Get your government hands off my medicare!"

[CutterJohn]

Sure as hell sounds like an overreach to me. Whether you want to call it socialist or not is up to you.

Maybe it is. Do you know whats hilarious? Single payer government run insurance, hell, even a National Health Service like Britain has.. Both of these things *would* be constitutional, because while the federal government may not have the power to force commerce, it most certainly has the power to tax.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Thats why medicare can exist.


The only thing invoking the constitution accomplishes is ensuring next time this comes up(and it will, seems to be a giant push every 10-15 years since the 60s), a mandate, the conservative compromise thats been peddled the last 4 times there was a massive health care push, will simply not even be on the table.

Declaring this unconstitutional will guarantee a single payer solution.

:D



I am not debating if healthcare costs are going up and I certainly agree with you that it is a problem and is not going away. However, I take serious issue with how what is being presented. Obama is trying to pull the "Republicans want you to die" card, when the real issue is the bill that was written was a massive overreach.

In fairness, Republicans started that with the 'Death panel' talk. There is hyperbole on both sides of the aisle.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

I'd wager they have been rolling over in their graves for over 100 years...if not more.

[Sirisian]

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
I think you forgot to turn on Fox this morning. You ran out of talking points. :lol: Also I wanted this to be a nice discussion without that kind of banter.

Did anyone watch that PBS thing I linked at the bottom of my first post? It's a good watch.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Vecha]

Commenting whether our founding fathers would like the direction of our country is not useless banter. History is important, as is the original intent of our rights and laws, and the context under which they were created.

I dont expect a liberal to understand.

The founding fathers themselves barely agreed on which direction the country should go.

[Figment]

The founding fathers themselves barely agreed on which direction the country should go.

But Vecha, Malorn has to bring up the founding fathers and have them mean what he says in every debate. Otherwise it's not a debate.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Figment the laws and taxation of United States citizens has absolutely zero impact on the citizens of the Netherlands.

Why do you give a flying fuck what we do here?

Foreign interest, you're an American, you wouldn't understand.


To use a popular argument from these here forums.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

And can you believe there are actually people who read about stuff like ancient history? Shit happened like a million years ago and these yahoos go around acting like it's something they ought to be concerned with. I bet most people couldn't even find Rome on a map.

[Figment]

Malorn, you indeed don't understand because you are so damn self-centered, like a lot of people like you and it's the main reason US REPUBLICAN citizens are not particularly liked, as the democrats tend to look at the world in a broader perspective. Often not broad enough, but still.

If you don't know shit about the world, don't pretend you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Which you do. A lot.


You can't even comprehend that gun legislation is actually not just an US-only-topic thing. You are the worst example in terms of crime and violence in the western world though, so sure, we discuss your policies.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

You really can't get over the concept of not being jealous, can you?

YOU REALLY CAN'T IMAGINE people being glad NOT to be American? :x

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

So you are saying we don't have boatloads of people coming over from Africa,Turkey, Eastern Europe, middle east, etc?

You only have Mexico and Cuba. How many truckloads are coming from Canada?

Just because you're the nearest thing doesn't make you the best thing ever.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Americans make more money than Canadians and pay less in taxes. My family is a family of surgeons, and some of my relatives moved to the US to work, where they make more than they did in Canada, and pay less for goods/services/taxes. It isn't easy to emigrate to the US, even if you're well-educated, but if your only concern is money then it's usually a good bet working there if you can. Thus the big "brain drain" thing that used to be an issue, where a lot of our highly trained people would go south of the border to work in the US instead of staying in Canada.

[Figment]

Malorn, ignorance is bliss.


Since when are Africans not black? And people from the dutch antilles are not black? Cape Verdians are white I suppose? And people from Suriname aren't either I suppose? Aside from those part indian millions are black. Oh and those from the asian colonies: Indonesians, Moluccans and Chinese. And the North Africans are of course Berber people and arabs.

You have any idea WHY our immigration rate is lower? No of course not, your geography is that bad that you don't comprehend what the mediteranian sea is. Tell you what. It is bigger than the Rio Grande.

Plus we have deliberately reduced immigration because we are litterally full. Only Shanghai is more densily populated. Did you know we and Canada actually also had political refugees from the USA, because Bush made them feel less free and our countries are more tolerant, more free and more secure? That is right, they used political asylum as reason for immigration...

Stop being so narrowminded and misplacedly arrogant: it makes you look dumb.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Warborn]

Since when are Africans not black?

I had a girlfriend who was an Afrikaaner. She was light-skinned.

[TheSHiFT]

lol Figment you're funny. I'm not a Republican; I'm a Libertarian.

And if you take out a handful of hot beds for gang related crime, the US crime rate really isn't any different from Europe's. We have gang and drug-related issues in certain parts of the country that inflates the natural average. Hell Utah allows machine guns and it has among the lowest homicide rate in the country and lower than the Canadian average. If guns were the problem Utah would be out of control.

Get off your euro high horse. Guns aren't some problem in American you're just jealous of our freedoms.

If youre going to make that comparison, youd have to not include certain parts of Canada that inflates its average.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

Utah itself is sparsely populated. At least six of Canada's provinces have a lower homicide rate. Try not comparing apples to oranges and you will sound less like a fool.

Please spout off another talking point and an ad hominem in reply. It will be so refreshing.


BTW, Im pro-gun.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

You don't have to hate America so much Figment.

You keep saying I hate Americans, which isn't true. I just dislike arrogant, overbearing twats with extreme prejudices and ignorance and trolling qualities. :) Which includes a certain 'libertarian'.

Wrap yourself in the red white and blue!

You mean the colours you and pretty much every other nation (including the French) took from OUR flag because it was so awesome? ;)